Hello everyone, my problem is this: many people argue that because Mary Magdalene was a woman and even possessed by demons, so she could not be seen as a proper eyewitness to the empty tomb and the resurrected Jesus. There is no reason that the early Christians created such embarrassing stories, so they must be true!
I myself don’t believe this, but I can’t come up a proper response. The criterion of embarrassment seems to be a strong argument to me and I don’t know how to refute it.
Therefore, I want to ask first: what’s your opinion about the validity of the criterion of embarrassment; second, if it’s not always convincing, how should we refute it?
Narohan said
Hello everyone, my problem is this: many people argue that because Mary Magdalene was a woman and even possessed by demons, so she could not be seen as a proper eyewitness to the empty tomb and the resurrected Jesus. There is no reason that the early Christians created such embarrassing stories, so they must be true!I myself don’t believe this, but I can’t come up a proper response. The criterion of embarrassment seems to be a strong argument to me and I don’t know how to refute it.
Therefore, I want to ask first: what’s your opinion about the validity of the criterion of embarrassment; second, if it’s not always convincing, how should we refute it?
I think that primarily, for a claim to be embarrassing, it needs to go against some later important theological dogma. Examples are the baptizing by John, which contradicts the idea of a Christ being without sin, or the story about Jesus declaring the Phoenician woman to be unworthy of receiving help because she was not Jewish. In these cases one can detect a tendency to remove the embarrassment already within NT.
There are lots of stories that appear silly to a modern reader, without being embarrassing in the technical sense, like the running competition in John 20:3-6.
Maybe it could be said that the story about Mary M. is a case of missing Coherence and therefor legendary. In the old Jewish society the testimony of a woman that had repeatedly been subjected to exorcisms , would have been considered completely without value and would not have entered the early traditions. Accordingly, the story most likely has been made up later in communities in which women upheld important functions.
Besides this, i feel that the traditional criteria has to be combined, and that they still give too many degrees of freedom so that two scholars using them may arrive at widely different conclusions.
She is mentioned in Mark only starting at the crucifixion, with mention of her exorcism only in the longer (later appended) ending. So “Mark” didn’t do this. Nor did Matthew–he doesn’t mention exorcism. Luke does, with “seven” demons being exorcised. John doesn’t. So only Luke and the addition to Mark say this. So a better question right off the bat is, why would Luke say this if it would be embarrassing? Luke was less interested in the Jewish perspective than Matthew or Mark, which squares with what gavriel says above. Some might argue that Mark made it up and was later copied and embellished upon by the other gospel writers. I see here most scholars believe that Mark drew from a pre-existing narrative: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Presumably this would not have included the mention of exorcisms. I’m not sure about views of whether the other writers might have had had access to such a source, or simply drew from Mark.
To respond to such an argument, I would note that only Luke does this and the other writers don’t. I would assume that she was clearly a part of this story. What she actually saw or thought she saw is another question. That one writer mentioned potentially embarrassing information doesn’t really have much bearing on that situation. He wasn’t the only one who noted that she was part of the picture.
tempogain said
She is mentioned in Mark only starting at the crucifixion, with mention of her exorcism only in the longer (later appended) ending. So “Mark” didn’t do this. Nor did Matthew–he doesn’t mention exorcism. Luke does, with “seven” demons being exorcised. John doesn’t. So only Luke and the addition to Mark say this. So a better question right off the bat is, why would Luke say this if it would be embarrassing? Luke was less interested in the Jewish perspective than Matthew or Mark, which squares with what gavriel says above. Some might argue that Mark made it up and was later copied and embellished upon by the other gospel writers. I see here most scholars believe that Mark drew from a pre-existing narrative: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Presumably this would not have included the mention of exorcisms. I’m not sure about views of whether the other writers might have had had access to such a source, or simply drew from Mark.To respond to such an argument, I would note that only Luke does this and the other writers don’t. I would assume that she was clearly a part of this story. What she actually saw or thought she saw is another question. That one writer mentioned potentially embarrassing information doesn’t really have much bearing on that situation. He wasn’t the only one who noted that she was part of the picture.
Thank you for your response, but the main argument used by some people is Mary Magdalene’ sex (woman), the demon-possessed history is merely a supplement.
I have read some papers which refute this idea by stressing the image of women in the gospels are actually pretty positive. But some people further argue that even though women are not really bad in the gospels, there are many better substitutes (maybe Peter or other disciples). Why didn’t the Christians change Mary Magdalene to Peter or other male disciples? Because these stories are the truth and the gospel writers respected the truth.
Narohan said
(…)
I have read some papers which refute this idea by stressing the image of women in the gospels are actually pretty positive. But some people further argue that even though women are not really bad in the gospels, there are many better substitutes (maybe Peter or other disciples). Why didn’t the Christians change Mary Magdalene to Peter or other male disciples? Because these stories are the truth and the gospel writers respected the truth.
The gospel writers faced a confusing mass of oral and written traditions and were guided by their preconceptions. The result may or may not be true.
I think the stories developed something like this, progressively:
1. The disciples fled and none of them witnessed the execution
2. Some of the disciples had visions, and a part of the original followers became convinced that J. was risen
3. The later, organized groupes needed a proof that Jesus had been buried and later had risen
4. Since the male disciples had fled, the only possible community witnesses would be unspecified female followers, testifying to burial and resurrection. A fair guess, but probably incorrect.
5. The supposed witnesses got names, but still appears out of thin air, just like Joseph of Arimathea, unconnected with the remaining gospel. A classical legendary development.
6. Finally, some personal coloring was added, like the Lukan excorcist feature, paraphrased in the second century longer ending of Mark.
Thank you for your response, but the main argument used by some people is Mary Magdalene’ sex (woman), the demon-possessed history is merely a supplement.
I misread that, thanks.
Several questions come to mind. Joseph of Arimathea does ask for the body (I’m sure I’ve heard some comment about how improbable that would have been FWIW. It could have been from Bart Ehrman but I’m not sure.) and help bury it in Mark. Would it have been impossible for him to be the witness if the writer had desired? The women went there specifically to anoint him. Might a man have visited the tomb for that or any other plausible reason? The main question in my mind is, if we presume that Mark’s version of the story was intended primarily for his community, would the simple fact of her womanhood have been that embarrassing? Later writers would have had reason not to want to alter such a key detail.
In the gospels, Joseph of Arimathea and the women do not cooperate neither on the burial nor on re-visiting the grave. This proves, I think, that we dealing with two legends combined in an editorial effort. In real life there would have been some cooperation on how and when to do the anointing. It is even more obvious when considering gJohn, in which the anointing has already been performed at the time of the burial. The elements of the story lack coherence, and this is the main criterion to apply here.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)